The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1887-10-08


amount of taxes for which coupons have
been rendered BY the act Of January
2G, 1856, it is provided that in such suits
the coupon holder shall produce the
bonds from which the coupons were cut
and bv the act of -, 1886, that after
producing the bonds and coupons the
defendant taxpayers shall not prove by
exnerte the genuine character OF either
bonds or coupons. When we add these
amendments tothe legislation of Virginia
already declared by the Supreme Court
10 be- void. they do not seem TO improve
the constitutional character Of that legis-
latiOn.
When first issued, these coupons were
negotiable instruments for the payment
of money, and were pIima taeie genuine.
Now it is to be provided that they shatl
be Drim0 frciC spurious, and shall not be
received till afirmatiyely proved in some
court to be genuine. When first Issued
the coupon itself was whole selt-sullicl-
ent contract, payable in money ana re-
ceiyable for taxes. Now II Is made worth
less for the purpose Of payment OF taxes
without its accompanying bond, when
itself is NOT receivable foT taxes; ana
when added to this legislation the act OF
- 1886. which f0rbids the only mode
of nroof of an engraved bond known to
liti6ants when the obligor is peryerse, u
mpst onpoar that the value OF a iaN-re-
ceivoble coupon Is almost entirely dcs-
troved If the substance of these three
acts of Assembly had been printed ON the
backs of coupons when first issued III
must be apparent that they never w0uld
have found a place in the money MARKERS
of the world.
have no hesitation I'm saying, in vie
of the decisions of the Supreme Court
i'm the coupon cases which have come be-
fore n that this subsequent legislation Is
I'm a line with the former efforts con
deipned bv that court 20 destroy the value
of the tax-receivable coupon I'm the hands
of its present holder, and is In dehanee
of one of the three departments OF the
Governmental judicial department. 10
the judgments of which, as The supreme
law of the land, every one IS Dounu pl
the Constitution 10 submit. IL i7 Du'
inst TO say that al this hearing no one
has attempted TO defend the purpose ol
these acts or to maintain their conslilu-
tiOnaIity as whole. s,
Granting the uncOnstituionalityo Oh lne
Acts of Assembly the second question is'
Has the Circuit Court jurisdiction topre-
vent tine officers of the state from put
TING them I'm force against these defend
aufse This is denied because of section
200 of the Revised Statutes, winch pro
vides THE writ of injunction snail hot
be granted by any court OF the United
State. TO STAY proceedings IN any court
of State except in cases where such IN
functions may be authorized by any law
relating to proceedings In bankruptcy
To this il is q sufficient answer TO say
that so far as the steamboat company 5
case is concerned proceedings I'D the
State courts are as vet only threatened
and even had they been attempted IL is
equally sufficient answer to say that lhere
can be no proceedings in any court, Stale,
OF Federal under an unconslilllon
statute The whole matter would DC
c9rqD, non jud,co and the judgment OF the
oonrt mo nrotectiOn to the officer attempt
ing to enforce IT,.
So far then, a. the steamboat com
nanv's case is concerned, we have state
officers endeavoring or Threatening TO
enforce an unconstitutional statute
srainst H. although it has paid It's taxes
in coupons, which the Supreme court mas
decided TO be a valid payment ms
brings the case precisely within the prlncl-
niles laid down i'm Osborne VS.. Bank,s
Wheaton. 15s In that case the bill wa
filed AGAINST the Auditor of Ohio TO re-
strain him from proceeding against the
hank under am act of the Legislature OF
that state. and the sole question then
nresented was according to the record in
that case Was the plaintiff entitled to re-
lief i'm equity and 10 the VIII OF lnJuhc
fon and fhe court decided that it was
The act of the Legislature OF OHIO was
there characterized as an attempt 10 uIiN'
the bank out Of the State. 1T Is not TO,
much TO say that the attempt here Is 10
totally destroy the ecomplainants property
I'm coupons. and to mulct 10 IN costs i0l
tenderine that which the Supreme Court
has solemny decided the defendants were
bound to receive in payment according
fo the States contract.
The remedy granted in Osborne VS. the
hank was the remedy by injunction, and
Mr. Justice Bradley, in the dissenting op
inion i'm PoindeNter and GreenhOw, de
clares such to be the remedy Of the citi
zen when threatere ed with an unconstitu-
tional proceeding IL is a preventive
remedy 10 stay the progress OF approach
ing injury. ana in accordance with Ions
line oi decisions to the like eilect. MT
Field i'm his late work on Federal courts
saws. "Ifa State law is IN conflict VIII
me Constitution of the United states, an'
q state officer is about to execute II, thi'
would be proper case for the exercise o
tbeoriginal jurisdiction of a circuit couf
TO restrain him.
We come next to consider the secoh'
case before the courl-James J.. Coope
et ais vs.. Morton Marye ct als-whicl
differs from that of the steamboat com
panv in that the complainants are non
resident aliens So far, therefore, as ih'
parties to the suit are concerned, I'M
court Is given jurisdiction by the statute
and the only objection to the exercise o
IL beside those made in the steamboa
case. Is that the complainants have NJ
such interest in the controversy or SUIT a
20 entitle them to relief in equity in thu